The Nehor Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 1 hour ago, Gray said: Friends don't let friends become fundamentalists. If I was a fundamentalist Mormon I would have multiple wives. Since I have none I am clearly an orthodox apostate.
Gray Posted February 3, 2016 Author Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) 37 minutes ago, volgadon said: Not necessarily. R. Moshe Cordovero from your old signature line, for example, believed that Abraham existed and that the akedah actually happened, but he also gave it a symbolic interpretation. That automatic and exclusive association of literalism with fundamentalism is just as shallow and dogmatic as fundamentalism. I don't automatically exclude that events described in the Bible actually happened (with the exception of obviously impossible stories like the Genesis creation myths). I just recognize the following: In many cases the events described are unlikely to have occurred as described We have no access to those events, and neither authors of the Bible In the end whether or not they happened is irrelevant, as it doesn't really mean anything in and of itself The tendency of fundamentalists is to apply strict literalism to certain areas of scripture. But of course it can go beyond scripture and into theology as well. Orthodox Mormonism is inherently fundamentalist, whether it's regarding the historicity of key scriptural accounts or the idea of the restoration as a return to Christianity in it's pure form. Edited February 3, 2016 by Gray
Gray Posted February 3, 2016 Author Posted February 3, 2016 13 minutes ago, The Nehor said: If I was a fundamentalist Mormon I would have multiple wives. Since I have none I am clearly an orthodox apostate. Fundamentalist is a relative term of course. In the world of politics there are conservatives and then there are CONSERVATIVES.
Guest Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 56 minutes ago, Gray said: Maybe, but I think to insist as a point of doctrine that Abraham must have existed and the story must have really occurred as written is a fundamentalist point of view. Why are you so married to the idea that he did not exist?
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 20 minutes ago, Gray said: I don't automatically exclude that events described in the Bible actually happened (with the exception of obviously impossible stories like the Genesis creation myths). I just recognize the following: In many cases the events described are unlikely to have occurred as described We have no access to those events, and neither authors of the Bible In the end whether or not they happened is irrelevant, as it doesn't really mean anything in and of itself The tendency of fundamentalists is to apply strict literalism to certain areas of scripture. But of course it can go beyond scripture and into theology as well. Orthodox Mormonism is inherently fundamentalist, whether it's regarding the historicity of key scriptural accounts or the idea of the restoration as a return to Christianity in it's pure form. I think we have a different concept of what is "obviously impossible".
Gray Posted February 3, 2016 Author Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Pa Pa said: Why are you so married to the idea that he did not exist? I'm not married to the idea, but I don't think the stories about him in scripture are enough to establish that he existed. If he did exist, I think the probability is low that the stories we have about him have much to do with the historical Abraham. The writers of the Bible didn't know Abraham, and didn't have access to his life. Frankly I don't think it matters. Whether or not he existed doesn't actually mean anything. It's the stories that are meaningful. Edited February 3, 2016 by Gray 1
Gray Posted February 3, 2016 Author Posted February 3, 2016 10 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I think we have a different concept of what is "obviously impossible". Clearly, yes.
Guest Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 14 minutes ago, Gray said: I'm not married to the idea, but I don't think the stories about him in scripture are enough to establish that he existed. If he did exist, I think the probability is low that the stories we have about him have much to do with the historical Abraham. The writers of the Bible didn't know Abraham, and didn't have access to his life. Frankly I don't think it matters. Whether or not he existed doesn't actually mean anything. It's the stories that are meaningful. It is not just stories, his linage is listed back to Adam and forward to Christ in Matthew 1st chapter. The events of his life were passed down through oral tradition as was Moses. Joshua, and on. If there is no Abraham, there is no promise of us being heirs of his and no New and Ecerlasting Covenant. His existence is almost as an important as Adam, Moses and Christ. Jesus is born of Mary, adopted into Joseph linage and it is Christ who bore witness of him. I do not mean this harshly, but you could not be more wrong about Abraham and the blessing that we have because of him. He had many children and wives, if you try to erase him you erase the Jews, The Arabs, and much of all humanity.
Gray Posted February 3, 2016 Author Posted February 3, 2016 12 minutes ago, Pa Pa said: It is not just stories, his linage is listed back to Adam and forward to Christ in Matthew 1st chapter. The events of his life were passed down through oral tradition as was Moses. Joshua, and on. If there is no Abraham, there is no promise of us being heirs of his and no New and Ecerlasting Covenant. His existence is almost as an important as Adam, Moses and Christ. Jesus is born of Mary, adopted into Joseph linage and it is Christ who bore witness of him. I do not mean this harshly, but you could not be more wrong about Abraham and the blessing that we have because of him. He had many children and wives, if you try to erase him you erase the Jews, The Arabs, and much of all humanity. The Jews clearly exist, with or without Abraham. Just as Susa-nš-wo does not need to have really existed to explain why Japanese people exist (http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSJapan.html) Do you think God isn't able to bless you without Abraham's help? And more importantly, what spiritual meaning could that possibly have? "God is going to give me something good." That's nice, but that's not an actionable idea. There is no spiritual lesson to be learned from Abraham being a real person.
Guest Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 39 minutes ago, Gray said: The Jews clearly exist, with or without Abraham. Just as Susa-nš-wo does not need to have really existed to explain why Japanese people exist (http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSJapan.html) Do you think God isn't able to bless you without Abraham's help? And more importantly, what spiritual meaning could that possibly have? "God is going to give me something good." That's nice, but that's not an actionable idea. There is no spiritual lesson to be learned from Abraham being a real person. He blesses me "with" Abraham's blessings and promises. Spelled out in Galatians, Hebrews and so on. If you want to agree that stories may be wrong, how does translate to Matther 1, being wrong? Do you doubt your own genealogy, because you feel someone embellished a story? Your logic is flawed, you are trying to erase the man because the stories don't agree with you opinion. But enough about this, it is become a circular argument.
Gray Posted February 3, 2016 Author Posted February 3, 2016 8 minutes ago, Pa Pa said: He blesses me "with" Abraham's blessings and promises. Spelled out in Galatians, Hebrews and so on. If you want to agree that stories may be wrong, how does translate to Matther 1, being wrong? Do you doubt your own genealogy, because you feel someone embellished a story? Your logic is flawed, you are trying to erase the man because the stories don't agree with you opinion. But enough about this, it is become a circular argument. Okay, so God is going to bless you with blessings associated with this story about Abraham. How does that require Abraham to have existed? I doubt Abraham's existence because it has not been established that he exists. Simple as that. I have no real skin in the game, though.
bluebell Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 19 minutes ago, Gray said: Okay, so God is going to bless you with blessings associated with this story about Abraham. How does that require Abraham to have existed? I doubt Abraham's existence because it has not been established that he exists. Simple as that. I have no real skin in the game, though. It hasn't been established that Christ exists either though. Needing to establish the existence of someone or something seems like a precarious place to approach theological beliefs from.
Gray Posted February 3, 2016 Author Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, bluebell said: It hasn't been established that Christ exists either though. Needing to establish the existence of someone or something seems like a precarious place to approach theological beliefs from. If a theology is dependent upon the historicity of scripture, it has a foundation of sand to begin with. My personal theology never requires a negation of an academic discipline. Those who insist on taking the scriptures literally or mostly literally will often run up against science, historical criticism, textual criticism, archaeology, etc. Theological disagreement with any of those things is backwards and unnecessary. As an aside, there is good reason to believe that Jesus was a historical person. And that's really all I need - a preponderance of evidence pointing in one direction or another. Edited February 3, 2016 by Gray
bluebell Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 1 minute ago, Gray said: If a theology is dependent upon the historicity of scripture, it has a foundation of sand to begin with. My personal theology never requires a negation of an academic discipline. Those who insist on taking the scriptures literally or mostly literally will often run up against science, historical criticism, textual criticism, archaeology, etc. Theological disagreement with any of those things is backwards and unnecessary. As an aside, there is good reason to believe that Jesus was a historical person. And that's really all I need - a preponderance of evidence pointing in one direction or another. It seems like if theology is dependent upon science, history, archeology, etc., agreeing with it, then that's not really theology at all. I think I see what you are saying. I just don't see a place for God or the Spirit in your beliefs. You've put Him in a tiny little box and limited His abilities and doctrine to only that which your human mind can find physical evidence for and also finds reasonably supported by secular standards.
Gray Posted February 3, 2016 Author Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) 47 minutes ago, bluebell said: It seems like if theology is dependent upon science, history, archeology, etc., agreeing with it, then that's not really theology at all. I think I see what you are saying. I just don't see a place for God or the Spirit in your beliefs. You've put Him in a tiny little box and limited His abilities and doctrine to only that which your human mind can find physical evidence for and also finds reasonably supported by secular standards. My theology is not dependent upon specific conclusions of any of those things. But my theology is also in complete harmony with science, archaeology, history etc. Would orthodox/traditional Mormonism cease to be a theology if all of a sudden strong evidence for Nephites were discovered in the Americas? Or if priesthood blessings were found to be clinically effective beyond the placebo effect? As I perceive it, I've liberated God from the tiny box that he's put into by more popular forms of theism. No one has a more expansive god than a pantheist - after all, to us, God is the only thing that exists. Edited February 3, 2016 by Gray
bluebell Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 3 hours ago, Gray said: My theology is not dependent upon specific conclusions of any of those things. But my theology is also in complete harmony with science, archaeology, history etc. I'm sorry if I have misunderstood your beliefs. I was under the impression that you didn't believe anything that was contradicted by secular knowledge or understanding. And that when theology and a secular understanding of something did conflict, that you always chose whichever theology was in agreement with secular understanding. 2
Gray Posted February 4, 2016 Author Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) 15 hours ago, bluebell said: I'm sorry if I have misunderstood your beliefs. I was under the impression that you didn't believe anything that was contradicted by secular knowledge or understanding. And that when theology and a secular understanding of something did conflict, that you always chose whichever theology was in agreement with secular understanding. My theology is very simple, so there is really no adjusting needed for new scientific discoveries. Essentially I believe that the only thing that exists is God. I don't believe in the supernatural or anything that has the "form" of the supernatural. I believe that good spiritual principles are discovered in process of living the spiritual life (aka revelation, from the ground up). I participate in spiritual practices like prayer, mindfulness, sacrament, listening to talks and sermons, etc. So there's nothing really there that would ever step on the toes of science. It's spirituality without superstition. Thanks for your thoughtful questions, by the way Edited February 4, 2016 by Gray
Recommended Posts